SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(SC) 302

G.B.PATTANAIK, UMESH C.BANERJEE
Mahendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


JUDGMENT :-

Leave granted.

2. The appellants stood convicted under section 324, IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months. On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to period already undergone and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo imprisonment R.I. for 3 months. During the period prescribed for payment of fine, the accused could not deposit the amount in question. Accused filed an application for extension of time by invoking jurisdiction under section 482, Cr. P. C. That application having been rejected, they further filed application. That application again stood dismissed. They filed 3rd application and when that application stood dismissed they have approached this Court. There cannot be any dispute that the accused were not entitled to file so many applications before the High Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 482. But having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in view of the statement that the accused were ill-advised to file number of applications before the High Court, and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the State in the interest of justice, we allow t


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top